The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

Other reports show how McElhinny pushed the fact that Apple had multiple software engineers testify while no Samsung executives showed up from Korea. "None of them were brave enough to come here and face cross examination," McElhinny said, per Reuters.

Could it be because the disputed software features were written by Google engineers, not Samsung engineers?

I hope this is the last Apple V. Samsung case. Look forward to the results and tbh think that's the only exciting part about these cases any more, the rest is just speculation and causes rage fits on both sides of the fandom kingdoms.

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. Should a company who disagrees with the patent office be able to go ahead an use an idea that someone has successfully patented without impunity? What value would a patent have if anyone could use them if they happen to disagree with their value?

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent. We make laws and rules and then we are supposed to follow them. All of them. Not just the ones we agree with. Change the law if necessary.

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. Should a company who disagrees with the patent office be able to go ahead an use an idea that someone has successfully patented without impunity? What value would a patent have if anyone could use them if they happen to disagree with their value?

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent. We make laws and rules and then we are supposed to follow them. All of them. Not just the ones we agree with. Change the law if necessary.

Revolutions have to start somewhere. The U.S. Patent system is in need of a major rehaul and this whole Apple vs. Samsung fight is going to be a basis for that argument.

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. Should a company who disagrees with the patent office be able to go ahead an use an idea that someone has successfully patented without impunity? What value would a patent have if anyone could use them if they happen to disagree with their value?

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent. We make laws and rules and then we are supposed to follow them. All of them. Not just the ones we agree with. Change the law if necessary.

Revolutions have to start somewhere. The U.S. Patent system is in need of a major rehaul and this whole Apple vs. Samsung fight is going to be a basis for that argument.

Right now it's a poor poster child for revolution. I mean, if you want to get behind a group of Korean gangsters whose CEO is CEO again after serving time for crimes committed as CEO that's cool and all, but I think that maybe Apple might be on to something with this one.

The issue in this case is Samsung’s conduct... Google should not be an issue for you.

Then why are you suing over core android features like the Linkify API? Samsung had literally nothing to do with Linkify. They didn't write it, they didn't modify it, they didn't touch it.

Google do not make Samsung phones. That's why Samsung gets sued. They are responsible for features they allow on their devices. Looks like they can send the bill to Google if they lose.

And if Apple was arguing that "Google copied our stuff and Samsung is vicariously liable for Google's actions," that'd be a good response. But Apple's arguing that Samsung has a culture of copying, that Samsung's employees are the ones who copied. Apple is arguing active wrongdoing by Samsung, not vicarious liability by Samsung, when (even IF the patents are valid) the evidence put on would only establish vicarious liability by Samsung.

In closing arguments of Apple v. Samsung I, Apple even listed Google as one of the "inventors" that companies like Samsung allegedly copy: "Magnavox, Motorola, RCA. ... They were inventors. They were like the Apple and Google today. But they didn't protect their intellectual property. They couldn't protect their ideas. And you all know the result. There are no American television manufacturers today."

Pretty ironic when the only "copying" Samsung did here was simply using Google software on their hardware.

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. Should a company who disagrees with the patent office be able to go ahead an use an idea that someone has successfully patented without impunity? What value would a patent have if anyone could use them if they happen to disagree with their value?

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent. We make laws and rules and then we are supposed to follow them. All of them. Not just the ones we agree with. Change the law if necessary.

Most of the process is fine, but the examiners are very limited in what they can do. Apple submitted the "unified search" patent over 6 times IIRC before it was approved. The changes they made *edit* didn't alter the scope of the patent one bit though.

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. Should a company who disagrees with the patent office be able to go ahead an use an idea that someone has successfully patented without impunity? What value would a patent have if anyone could use them if they happen to disagree with their value?

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent. We make laws and rules and then we are supposed to follow them. All of them. Not just the ones we agree with. Change the law if necessary.

Revolutions have to start somewhere. The U.S. Patent system is in need of a major rehaul and this whole Apple vs. Samsung fight is going to be a basis for that argument.

Right now it's a poor poster child for revolution. I mean, if you want to get behind a group of Korean gangsters whose CEO is CEO again after serving time for crimes committed as CEO that's cool and all, but I think that maybe Apple might be on to something with this one.

Yeah, Apple really deserves to strongarm companies using the background data, spelling check, and universal search patents. Because surely those were never used before the iPhone.

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. Should a company who disagrees with the patent office be able to go ahead an use an idea that someone has successfully patented without impunity? What value would a patent have if anyone could use them if they happen to disagree with their value?

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent. We make laws and rules and then we are supposed to follow them. All of them. Not just the ones we agree with. Change the law if necessary.

Revolutions have to start somewhere. The U.S. Patent system is in need of a major rehaul and this whole Apple vs. Samsung fight is going to be a basis for that argument.

Right now it's a poor poster child for revolution. I mean, if you want to get behind a group of Korean gangsters whose CEO is CEO again after serving time for crimes committed as CEO that's cool and all, but I think that maybe Apple might be on to something with this one.

As opposed to the company that entered into various anticompetitive agreements?

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. Should a company who disagrees with the patent office be able to go ahead an use an idea that someone has successfully patented without impunity? What value would a patent have if anyone could use them if they happen to disagree with their value?

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent. We make laws and rules and then we are supposed to follow them. All of them. Not just the ones we agree with. Change the law if necessary.

Revolutions have to start somewhere. The U.S. Patent system is in need of a major rehaul and this whole Apple vs. Samsung fight is going to be a basis for that argument.

Right now it's a poor poster child for revolution. I mean, if you want to get behind a group of Korean gangsters whose CEO is CEO again after serving time for crimes committed as CEO that's cool and all, but I think that maybe Apple might be on to something with this one.

Steve Jobs and Apple are hardly the poster children for moral and ethical business conduct either.

Yeah, Apple really deserves those background data, spelling check, and universal search patents. Because surely those were never used before the iPhone.

Wait, I'm lost. Is this trial concerning whether or not Samsung infringes those patents, or whether Apple "deserves" them, as you've put?

Well I can't think for this person, but the reality is, if you check the jury instructions, they are to decide if those patents are invalid, infringed, and if they were willful, and damages for lost business due to marketshare, etc.

However, who's to say HTC, Sony, and other Android manufacturers didn't also infringe on these patents? Why is Apple choosing to go after Samsung?

Oh, that's right. Samsung threatens their marketshare and has money.

But I digress, that's whole other argument completely.

So, Apple should go for every single instance of infringement (and have the same level of success as, say, the chumps trying to litigate pirating?), or should they try for the major infringing company, whom have the biggest marketshare?

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. Should a company who disagrees with the patent office be able to go ahead an use an idea that someone has successfully patented without impunity? What value would a patent have if anyone could use them if they happen to disagree with their value?

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent. We make laws and rules and then we are supposed to follow them. All of them. Not just the ones we agree with. Change the law if necessary.

Revolutions have to start somewhere. The U.S. Patent system is in need of a major rehaul and this whole Apple vs. Samsung fight is going to be a basis for that argument.

Right now it's a poor poster child for revolution. I mean, if you want to get behind a group of Korean gangsters whose CEO is CEO again after serving time for crimes committed as CEO that's cool and all, but I think that maybe Apple might be on to something with this one.

Yeah, Apple really deserves to strongarm companies using the background data, spelling check, and universal search patents. Because surely those were never used before the iPhone.

False equivalence. I have said nothing that defends Apple, I'm just suggesting that your decision to choose a demonstrably criminal organization as a poster child for your new patent order might be a bad choice. There are better options out there.

Which goes for just about everything Samsung: there are better options out there.

However, who's to say HTC, Sony, and other Android manufacturers didn't also infringe on these patents? Why is Apple choosing to go after Samsung?

Oh, that's right. Samsung threatens their marketshare and has money.

But I digress, that's whole other argument completely.

So, Apple should go for every single instance of infringement (and have the same level of success as, say, the chumps trying to litigate pirating?), or should they try for the major infringing company, whom have the biggest marketshare?

Apple won't bother with anyone but Samsung, because Samsung is their only real competition and the only real threat to their kingdom. Really, this isn't about money. Both Apple and Samsung have plenty of that.

This is about Apple intentionally trying to stifle the advancement of technology because they feel threatened by their product's own dwindling marketshare and influence.

Why make a better product when you can beat your competition into a pulp using ill-gotten patents?

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. Should a company who disagrees with the patent office be able to go ahead an use an idea that someone has successfully patented without impunity? What value would a patent have if anyone could use them if they happen to disagree with their value?

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent. We make laws and rules and then we are supposed to follow them. All of them. Not just the ones we agree with. Change the law if necessary.

Revolutions have to start somewhere. The U.S. Patent system is in need of a major rehaul and this whole Apple vs. Samsung fight is going to be a basis for that argument.

Right now it's a poor poster child for revolution. I mean, if you want to get behind a group of Korean gangsters whose CEO is CEO again after serving time for crimes committed as CEO that's cool and all, but I think that maybe Apple might be on to something with this one.

Yeah, Apple really deserves to strongarm companies using the background data, spelling check, and universal search patents. Because surely those were never used before the iPhone.

False equivalence. I have said nothing that defends Apple, I'm just suggesting that your decision to choose a demonstrably criminal organization as a poster child for your new patent order might be a bad choice. There are better options out there.

Which goes for just about everything Samsung: there are better options out there.

So my choices are A) a demonstrably criminal organization or B) a company who intentionally filed for and received broad patents for the purpose of strong-arming the industry and demolishing any and all competition.

However, who's to say HTC, Sony, and other Android manufacturers didn't also infringe on these patents? Why is Apple choosing to go after Samsung?

Oh, that's right. Samsung threatens their marketshare and has money.

But I digress, that's whole other argument completely.

So, Apple should go for every single instance of infringement (and have the same level of success as, say, the chumps trying to litigate pirating?), or should they try for the major infringing company, whom have the biggest marketshare?

Apple won't bother with anyone but Samsung, because Samsung is their only real competition and the only real threat to their kingdom. Really, this isn't about money. Both Apple and Samsung have plenty of that.

This is about Apple intentionally trying to stifle the advancement of technology because they feel threatened by their product's own dwindling marketshare and influence.

Why make a better product when you can beat your competition into a pulp using ill-gotten patents?

Maybe you can show us something that Samsung has brought to the market in the mobile space that was new, innovative, successful, and not inspired by the iPhone.

Heart rate sensor? Hmm, it's been on the Google Play store for a few years.

Oh, I know... Water resis... nope, Sony beat them to the punch on that one, and did it better.

Bringing back the stylus? I don't know, Mickey, you seem to be the expert on all things Samsung. Maybe you can help us out here.

So my choices are A) a demonstrably criminal organization or B) a company who intentionally filed for and received broad patents for the purpose of strong-arming the industry and demolishing any and all competition.

It's honestly a tough choice.

Again, false dichotomy - why don't you pick someone who ISN'T Apple or Samsung? Why are those the only two colours you insist on wearing?

However, who's to say HTC, Sony, and other Android manufacturers didn't also infringe on these patents? Why is Apple choosing to go after Samsung?

Oh, that's right. Samsung threatens their marketshare and has money.

But I digress, that's whole other argument completely.

So, Apple should go for every single instance of infringement (and have the same level of success as, say, the chumps trying to litigate pirating?), or should they try for the major infringing company, whom have the biggest marketshare?

Apple won't bother with anyone but Samsung, because Samsung is their only real competition and the only real threat to their kingdom. Really, this isn't about money. Both Apple and Samsung have plenty of that.

This is about Apple intentionally trying to stifle the advancement of technology because they feel threatened by their product's own dwindling marketshare and influence.

Why make a better product when you can beat your competition into a pulp using ill-gotten patents?

Maybe you can show us something that Samsung has brought to the market in the mobile space that was new, innovative, successful, and not inspired by the iPhone.

Bringing back the stylus? I don't know, Mickey, you seem to be the expert on all things Samsung. Maybe you can help us out here.

How about crafting an alternative product to the iPhone that offers consumers a real choice, so they wouldn't have to be tied down with Apple's ball and chain and be a part of their monopoly?

That's probably the best thing Samsung could have brought to the world of mobile computing ever. Competition.

So my choices are A) a demonstrably criminal organization or B) a company who intentionally filed for and received broad patents for the purpose of strong-arming the industry and demolishing any and all competition.

It's honestly a tough choice.

Again, false dichotomy - why don't you pick someone who ISN'T Apple or Samsung? Why are those the only two colours you insist on wearing?

Hey, believe me, if the apps I use every day had Windows Phone equivalents, I'd be all over that. Maybe one day Microsoft will turn that into a true contender.

The issue in this case is Samsung’s conduct... Google should not be an issue for you.

Then why are you suing over core android features like the Linkify API? Samsung had literally nothing to do with Linkify. They didn't write it, they didn't modify it, they didn't touch it.

Google do not make Samsung phones. That's why Samsung gets sued. They are responsible for features they allow on their devices. Looks like they can send the bill to Google if they lose.

And if Apple was arguing that "Google copied our stuff and Samsung is vicariously liable for Google's actions," that'd be a good response. But Apple's arguing that Samsung has a culture of copying, that Samsung's employees are the ones who copied. Apple is arguing active wrongdoing by Samsung, not vicarious liability by Samsung, when (even IF the patents are valid) the evidence put on would only establish vicarious liability by Samsung.

In closing arguments of Apple v. Samsung I, Apple even listed Google as one of the "inventors" that companies like Samsung allegedly copy: "Magnavox, Motorola, RCA. ... They were inventors. They were like the Apple and Google today. But they didn't protect their intellectual property. They couldn't protect their ideas. And you all know the result. There are no American television manufacturers today."

Pretty ironic when the only "copying" Samsung did here was simply using Google software on their hardware.

If only that were true.Samsung made their products look/act as close as they could to Apples. This even applied to the power supplies, the packaging, icons, etc etc etc.Google had no control over that.

What Samsung has done would be like me posting under the name Mitlov (notice the extra space at the end). Now 99.999% of people would NOT see the difference, but hey what are you gonna do, start claiming you have copyright on the Alphabet....

And it is only Samsung who have copies this closely, other manufacturers have design teams who have been able to make functional, aesthetic products which DONT look/behave like Apples. They were warned by Google, and chose to ignore the warning.

The only thing I remember from this case is a Google email to Samsung urging them to not copy the iPhone so blatantly. The rest is really all just fluff dancing around this core issue. If your business partner is warning you, that is a sign that you are copying too much.

We all get that functionally Samsung needed something like what Apple produced. However, see Microsoft Windows Phone 8 for how you take a new product category that has finally come to fruition and do something that covers the functionality but with some original thought added.

It is not easy, but it sure prevents the billion dollar damages and you can be proud of what you did.

The only thing I remember from this case is a Google email to Samsung urging them to not copy the iPhone so blatantly. The rest is really all just fluff dancing around this core issue. If your business partner is warning you, that is a sign that you are copying too much.

We all get that functionally Samsung needed something like what Apple produced. However, see Microsoft Windows Phone 8 for how you take a new product category that has finally come to fruition and do something that covers the functionality but with some original thought added.

It is not easy, but it sure prevents the billion dollar damages and you can be proud of what you did.

It sounds like you are referring to Google's email about their tablet designs; that was the first trial.

I haven't heard anything of the sort in this trial which deals nothing about design.

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. Should a company who disagrees with the patent office be able to go ahead an use an idea that someone has successfully patented without impunity? What value would a patent have if anyone could use them if they happen to disagree with their value?

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent. We make laws and rules and then we are supposed to follow them. All of them. Not just the ones we agree with. Change the law if necessary.

Patents protect a specific method for achieving a result, not the result itself. If you genuinely believe that your method is not covered by the patent (for reasons of prior art or obviousness), why wouldn't you be in the right to go ahead and use it? If you later get sued by a patent holder trying to maximize the breadth of the language (for example, by claiming that a tap is a zero-length swipe), who is ultimately in the wrong?

Take the Linkify example. Linkify doesn't provide some sophisticated analyzer server to detect context. According to the developer documentation (http://developer.android.com/reference/ ... nkify.html), the Linkify library is merely a collection of general search-and-replace routines. They have to be explicitly invoked by the application developer on the piece of text to be analyzed, and it's completely up the developer to specify what patterns to search for. Any programmer could reproduce the functionality of Linkify independently in a few lines of Java, or by piping the contents of a textview through a text processing utility like awk or sed.In fact, the addLinks() function in Linkify is basically a direct application of Java's regex facilities (http://grepcode.com/file/repository.gre ... e%2Cint%29).

Given that search-and-replace has been around for essentially as long as computers have been used to process text, and that Linkify is essentially a search-and-replace utility, was Google wrong to include Linkify in Android assuming obviousness?

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. Should a company who disagrees with the patent office be able to go ahead an use an idea that someone has successfully patented without impunity? What value would a patent have if anyone could use them if they happen to disagree with their value?

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent. We make laws and rules and then we are supposed to follow them. All of them. Not just the ones we agree with. Change the law if necessary.

Patents protect a specific method for achieving a result, not the result itself. If you genuinely believe that your method is not covered by the patent (for reasons of prior art or obviousness), why wouldn't you be in the right to go ahead and use it? If you later get sued by a patent holder trying to maximize the breadth of the language, who is ultimately in the wrong?

Take the Linkify example. Linkify doesn't provide some sophisticated analyzer server to detect context. According to the developer documentation (http://developer.android.com/reference/ ... nkify.html), the Linkify library is merely a collection of general search-and-replace routines. They have to be explicitly invoked by the application developer on the piece of text to be analyzed, and it's completely up the developer to specify what patterns to search for. It's not much different from any other regular expression matching engine, such as that found in the Java standard library (and in fact the addLinks() function in Linkify is basically a direct application of Java's regex facilities).

Given that search-and-replace has been around for essentially as long as computers have been used to process text, was Google wrong to include Linkify in Android assuming its method as obvious?

I wish ars would cover this more than they have...

On the last day, samsung's witness about that patent presented prior art from borderland's software in 1984. Of course, that source went on an on about him saying something he shouldn't have.

If only that were true.Samsung made their products look/act as close as they could to Apples. This even applied to the power supplies, the packaging, icons, etc etc etc.Google had no control over that.

What Samsung has done would be like me posting under the name Mitlov (notice the extra space at the end). Now 99.999% of people would NOT see the difference, but hey what are you gonna do, start claiming you have copyright on the Alphabet....

And it is only Samsung who have copies this closely, other manufacturers have design teams who have been able to make functional, aesthetic products which DONT look/behave like Apples. They were warned by Google, and chose to ignore the warning.

Maybe you can show us something that Samsung has brought to the market in the mobile space that was new, innovative, successful, and not inspired by the iPhone....Bringing back the stylus? I don't know, Mickey, you seem to be the expert on all things Samsung. Maybe you can help us out here.

* Samsung basically invented the "phablet" market segment with the Galaxy Note line...a segment that most other Android OEMs have followed Samsung into for their flagship devices.

* Samsung was the first (and only?) OEM to introduce digitizer stylus functionality to Android with the S-pen.

* Samsung was the first OEM to build split-screen multitasking into Android, starting I believe with the Galaxy S3.

* Samsung was the first OEM to build windowed multitasking into Android, starting I believe with the Galaxy Note 2.

* Samsung was the first OEM to build quick-toggle settings into the notification shade.

* Samsung is the only smartphone maker I know of whose flagship features both microSD expansion and a swappable battery.

Phones like the Galaxy Note III aren't copies of the iPhone. They're the diametric opposite of the iPhone. If you think that consumers believe that the Galaxy Note III and devices like it are iPhone clones, or think they're buying an iPhone when they buy a Note III...I don't know what to say.

It's sad that the only coverage of this trial on Ars was of the opening and closing statements, where we know that hyperbole will prevail, instead of during the testimony, where the sides try to present facts that support their case (and hyperbole).